tv FCC Commissioner Michael O Rielly New Conference CSPAN May 19, 2017 4:30pm-4:46pm EDT
ago,have there been more cyber attacks , what steps are you taking to combat that in the future and what are you doing to crack down on possible propriety. >> i appreciate the question again on any issues relating to the sec's website or efs, i would refer you to our it professionals, they been hard at work on this issue and they understand the technical nuances. >> you can work through also media relationson that. >> . >> that's it for now so thank you very much. now we will go to the bureau of accountability. >> ... how are we doing today? you look very
non-caffeinated. did you want to start down here? sure. >> i don't have one yet. there we go. i was wondering if you wanted to respond to commissioner clyburn's statements that she doesn't believe the republican majority thinks that any services are title ii services? >> i have to go back and look at her analysis. i only heard the one research statement in full and it is quite a lengthy dissent so i want to read it in full. i think some of the things she mentioned off the top of myhead as i was taking notes seems to be very tough cases for a title ii scenario . i find that to be a very tough title ii scenario. i've given my views on the past on our different scenarios so i have to go back and see but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's
one way or the other. there are title ii services today and treated and gone that way. look at our rules all the time and see what needs to be modified and the classification is an important function of the commission. >> okay, we will go back this way. >> he also said that the immediate deregulation order or mprm starts out with the presupposition that you need to get rid of all these rules to make way for industry. you have a response to that? >> you see the item, i don't know if it's changed. i think it is a review of all our rules, it's separate too, we don't have a requirement to look at the media rules and cable rules so here's an opportunity the chairman putting forward to examine our existing rules and determine what's necessary. i think she made the point in a nice way, not to be too critical but she said she might be jumping, i don't know what the phrase here but speaking over the concern
about this item. it's presupposing what the outcome might be, so i find the item to be a step forward in review. our existing rules and determine what should stay and what should go. i don't think that's a predisposition that everything's going to go. i outlined a couple different examples that would be prime candidates but that's going to be for others to comment on and we will go from there. your next. >> we will go down the list, yes sir. >> you stated before your preference that congress deal with the net neutrality issue. are you hopeful of this process that started today will spur action on the hill as you go through this process? >> we haven't got an outcome on this item, this is a mprm so will see where it goes depending on the comments created, but at some point we
will get to a conclusion but i don't speculate on what to do in congress or may or may not do. i'm on my cues from the statute at the record, they will do it for me and try to make the best decision i can from that. and we will see, i heard multiple different things on different people commenting on what may happen in congress and i don't know what's accurate or not. in a past life i would have better analysis and this one i couldn't tell you what they may be capable or not capable of doing or for them to decide. >> i think the only lasting peace on net neutrality can be driven through transitory provisions by congress and it's the only way to address the issue long-term. i think it provides the certainty that everyone's been seeking. i worked on past efforts, the last one i worked on was 2005
so i think it's the only way to address the issue long-term and provide lasting peace. >> this may not be the fairest question because you can't consult what other people say. you have any concerns that reactions not just by opponents of reversing title ii but they carry the term that the fcc had taken the steps for doing this presupposing outcome that you haven't reached yet.do you have any concerns that that undermines the corner confidence of the public in the way the fcc carries out. >> i don't think so. i think the public will comment as they see appropriate inthe coming months . there have been a number of comments so far. i made the point to the more substantive comments are more important to me. i do look at all the comments, i do acknowledge
all the comments and try to give weight to all comments but there are many walking away that i get that are very colorful in their direction and so there's only so much weight i'm going to give to those so i think the public is not going to be dissuaded from commenting on the topic. there are a lot of different views on this and we will see where itgoes . >> margaret mcgough, politico. sounds like you asked for a question to be added to the mpr m related to i guess maybe, i don't know if it would be preempting but trying to do something to make sure they don't do their own net neutrality. >> question i asked with jurisdiction and the classification get to jurisdiction issues and what the ramifications of that and as i outlined in my statement, i think the german
did a wonderful job of asking questions and a full some record on it in many different directions back in the one that need more clarification. i have insert and articulated that outside of this today that regarding localities, establishing privacy rules for you know, there's the city of seattle has pushed it for example on privacy and we're having read entering into fights over voice and a couple different states so i have concerns about what the ramifications are for that and i want to know if this is declared depending on how the item goes and we will see the record in the comments and along with where this goes if this is declared interstate information services around ramifications for the jurisdictional line going forward. >> you kind of have a concern that maybe states do their own net neutrality rules, is that something ... >> depending but i have these
subsets of privacy, i'm having difficulty in my own head out somehow the underlying broadband service can be, can be a title i service assuming how things play out depending on how things go but certainly in terms of some people's viewpoint that is a title i service. i have difficulty believing that an application of voip in my opinion should be treated as a title ii service and it seems to be where states are trying to involve themselves and you look at the case in minnesota , the court just ruled on this issue. to take the pcs effort to do so. >> fred rolando, national journal. critics of the proposal i guess to roll back to title i classification say it would extend beyond its effects on isps specifically that it would look at potentially i guess expanding the fcc's
universal service programs as it relates to broadband, what are your thoughts on that? >> i don't see that being, i'm happy to follow up but i don't see that being, the language is quite broad. and it provides an opportunity not just for those covered under title ii but also we can extend it so i don't see that being, i articulated in my statement i don't have any intention of supporting an effort to impose contributions on broadband services. and don't expect me to do so. you know, and in my position, i just don't agree with that. for multiple reasons and given speeches on this in congress, a permanent moratorium or ban on internet access taxes so to me this is a nonstarter. >> holly briones the hill. i'm going to ask you the same question i asked chairman ajit pai to hope we get i guess a more direct answer to the question.
>> the chairman didn't answer your question? >> he did not. so the question i have is that broadband executives in places like at&t, comcast and charter have talked about how title ii and reference it directly in reference to net neutrality will not affect their investment in broadband which has been largely what your, chairman pai's argument is predicated on and at the same time these companies have submitted their investments to you so it seems like in one situation they are misleading one group or the other. what do you think is happening? >> to quibble with your question, not to quibble with it but my concerns are based in multiple layers, is not just the investment argument. there's one argument judah up in the item and my argument is legal precedent and you can go through that in the past in terms of the
gymnastic the commission went through to get to the point they did and stick to a lot of steps in 2015 so but your point on reinvestments, i don't believe there is another statutory provision and protections from lying in either situation. i thought the german did a good job of answering the point that the data depends on what the question is asked so i don't, there is investment in infrastructure that is happening in mexico or whether it be for other services that does deal with overall acts is different than whether it's on broadband services as it relates to the impact and you can have both increasing in a year and still have you know, not as much, title ii still impacting the business, that doesn't mean they're disagreeing but you can have asked that title ii can practicewhat it could have been and what should have been absent the rules . >> unless i missed her just
misunderstanding, the executives directly said net neutrality is not invest affecting their investment strategy. >> i'm happy to review any material that you want to take a look at. i think you'll see different people make different comments within the same company. and that doesn't mean that they are lying to one board or the other, it's different responsibilities and the data they are presenting may be completely consistent with the question that asked. so in some regards, could be similar to a pole angle, if you ask it this way you will get this answer. i don't believe, i have no fact data to suggest they are lying to the commission. in terms of their presentation. >> thank you. >> hi, mister o'reilly, tied shields of bloomberg. >> are there any net neutrality rules you would that. >> that he would support?
>> should there be no neutrality rules and all. >> were in a new item here so i'm going to let the record in the law and review once before, i have raised concerns with all rules and the need for any rules. i have deep concern and have expressed such as a way to a bright line ban on a prioritization and the general conduct standard and gone into it length on why i disagree. the value of a ban on blocking and throttling, i question whether it's necessary. i'm going to let the record and the comments that accumulate from that and the law that governs the statute and governs our activities, helps bring the decisions as they get closer to the end of the item but i'd raise concerns with all those areas. i have concerns and 80, i did not believe section 706 as a formative authority for this setting so i i guess we'll articulated on the point.
>>. >> i think, yes sir. >> so if you don't like title ii and you don't think the section 706 is an authority here. where is the authority to make net neutrality rules? >> that's a question for the record to determine and we explore acts. >> we look to ask commentary on all these points. to make it back to the question i've asked before, that's an issue for congress to decide. there are issues over the past where amy may or may not want to or would personally be interested in taking action but the statute doesn't allow us to do so. so i am, that's just we are limited on what we can do. i don't believe section 706 as any authority, i said that in the past, and will see if the comments come in on this item that changes that you
point. it seems kind of hard. i was there at the time but i'm happy to look and see what people would arguments are made and if they change my mind but to that point, it's determined by the record that there is no authority to act, but something for congress to decide if they decide to do so. >> you mentioned that one question that you wanted in the mprm narrative, are there any other changes from the draft?>> it would be unfair to me, i didn't fight there would be too much change in the item but that's for them to see if they will get out expeditiously but that's not significantly different than that version. there are some pieces that i think may have different obligations to respond to the record. i'm sure they did a good job of that what i will tell you i don't find it to be to me or substantially right in many ways. >>. >> all right, i hope that puzzled everyone enough,